Which territories have the right to self-determination?

Jurisprudence is a complicated science, and even international law is even more so. There are no well-defined codes, but there are separate documents adopted by the UN, but the trouble is that their compliance can not always be achieved due to the inferiority of coercive mechanisms. Countries that are strong militarily often produce actions that do not fit into the resolution, and nothing can be done about it. It remains only to rely on precedents and consider them as the main arguments for rightness or, on the contrary, violations of international law. So what if some of the state announced its decision to withdraw from its membership? And if he wants to join another? There are already many such cases.

Legal document

The simplest and most obvious way to solve this problem is a referendum. It's just like this and ask people if they live separately or are more inclined to preserve the status quo as part of a single country. On this topic, there is a recognized document. This is the UN Charter. His first article directly indicates the right of peoples to self-determination, as well as the free disposal of natural resources and resources. Moreover, this historical community can not be deprived of the means for existence. And the opportunity to take advantage of this right, all the signatories (Ukraine including) promised to respect, encourage, and if some trust territory is in a certain country, then it is responsible for it. This is the fundamental principle of all international law. All clear. But why in fact often everything happens wrong, and every time differently?

The Kosovo incident

During the Balkan crisis, independent countries - Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina - emerged on the territory of the former unified federative state. Europe and the US welcomed such a decision of the people, referring to the already mentioned UN Charter. At the same time, the Serbian Kraine was denied this right. Ethnic cleansing was launched, which was of a mutual nature, but only one side of the conflict was recognized as guilty. Ultimately, after the NATO intervention, Kosovo was recognized as an independent state, and even the referendum in it was not worth it. This incident became a precedent, after which the dismemberment of the country into separate parts was no longer perceived as something extraordinary. The people decided - then so be it. The right of the nation to self-determination is sacred, but the question arises: what is it? What is the people? What is meant by this word?

What is a nation?

Earlier, in Soviet times, any student who had studied at least as conscientiously could answer this question. He knew that the people - a large community of people, united by a number of signs, including language, territory and some other criteria, including even temperament. This long formulation was invented by JV Stalin himself, who, as is known, was a great expert on the national question. It was believed that there are as many peoples in the Soviet Union as the constituent republics, that is, fifteen (most of the time of the existence of the USSR). However, apart from them there were also nationalities, this is about the same, only in the size of smaller and without the right to self-determination, prescribed in the Constitution. That is, theoretically (and as it later turned out, and practically), Ukrainians, Azeris or Armenians could secede, but Ingush or Karyaks did not. But time goes on, concepts change, are filled with new content, and the Stalinist definition of peoples (nations) is no longer working. For example, Bosnian Muslims do not even fall under the definition of a nationality. These are the same Serbs, speak the same language, only profess Islam.

Russia

Yes, this case is very complicated. A huge number of nationalities united by a single state structure in an immense territory with their own languages, culture and religious views. In the 1990s, the economic crisis and the loss of a single ideological platform led to the generation of centrifugal tendencies and threatened the collapse of the country. The most acute was manifested in the Chechen Republic, and the war began. At the same time, the policy of foreign leaders was complex, on the one hand they supported territorial integrity (in words), while on the other hand they hinted at the right of the people to live independently. Mass ethnic cleansing was conducted in Chechnya against the Russian-speaking population, the center behaved clumsily and applied force disproportionately, but ultimately, the conflict with great difficulty and considerable losses managed to be extinguished to the considerable annoyance of the West, hoping that the process of disintegration would go avalanche-like . Fortunately, the Russian leadership made the right conclusions.

Crimea

The situation with the Crimea in appearance is extremely transparent. The population of the peninsula has shown an attitude towards its future in two referendums. However, it was in this case that the so-called "world community" took a tough stance. Say, the referendum on the entry of the autonomous region into Russia is not legal, it was conducted "at gunpoints." Residents of Europe and the US gently instilled a dreadful picture: in the occupied Sevastopol (Simferopol, Yalta, etc.) go dark patrols, residents are intimidated, the Tatars are terrorized, and, in general, the occupation is obvious.

At the same time, if you ask practically any German, for example, about what to do, if people in their majority want to live in Russia, then he will answer without hesitation: "Well, if yes, why not?" In his European consciousness, it's easy Does not fit, as it is possible to force someone to something, especially on such a vast territory as the Crimea. It's just that a westerner does not yet believe that a referendum was conducted honestly. Probably, if the leadership of Russia were offered to repeat it under the supervision of international representatives, it would most likely agree to close the issue. But this option is for some reason not considered.

North Ossetia, Abkhazia and other "frozen" conflicts

In these republics, too, there was a struggle for territorial integrity, and the more violent it was, the fewer chances of success remained. Of course, the Georgian leadership did not conduct a referendum, obviously believing that it will lead to nothing good. Nevertheless, it passed in both Abkhazia and North Ossetia, these autonomies separated and, most likely, forever. Much earlier this happened in other hot spots of the former USSR, in Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. Conflicts are defined as "frozen", and, probably, this is the only way to prevent further bloodshed.

Donbass

"Separate districts," as they are sometimes called the representatives of official Kiev, are also actually in the zone of a "frozen" (for the present not quite) conflict. To hope for their return to the united Ukrainian state there are fewer and fewer reasons, too many victims, so that the local population would like and be able to forgive them. And again a referendum, and again it is as if illegitimate. However, they can not recognize the loss of territories in Kiev either. The main argument, if we omit the hot slogans about the "united Ukraine" is approximately the same: "There is no such people - Donetsk (Lugansk, Crimean). And while the most active proponents of decommunization somehow do not notice that they are using the same old Stalinist definition of the nation.

Worldwide

The problems of self-determination are not unique to the post-Soviet space. The desire for independence is shown by the Catalans, the inhabitants of Northern Ireland and even the state of Texas. In most cases, these issues are resolved peacefully, for example, after the war, the Saar region "migrated" to the FRG. In 1962, India annexed the Portuguese colony of Goa and a number of other territories. In 1965, Singapore declared its independence from Malaysia. Few people remember that Norway until 1905 (another 111 years ago!) Was part of Sweden. And there are other examples. In most cases, a referendum was held, and all - there is another country. And we do not need to fight. People decide how they feel better.